LENIN.----REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION'S DRAFT PROGRAM.

displaces small independent producers—that is, causes a relative diminution in their numbers, transforming some of them into proletarians, narrows the role of the remainder in socio-economic life, and in places places them in a more or less complete, more or less evident, more or less heavy dependence on large entrepreneurs*).

5. By transforming some of the small independent producers into proletarians, that same improvement in technique leads to an even greater increase in the supply of labor-power, giving entrepreneurs the possibility to apply female and child labor on an ever larger scale in the process of production and circulation of commodities. And since on the other hand that same process of technical improvement**) (machinery) leads to a relative diminution in the entrepreneurs' need for living labor of workers, the demand for labor-power necessarily lags behind its supply, as a result of which the dependence of wage-labor on capital increases and the level of its exploitation by capital rises. The share of the working class in the total sum of the social income created by its labor is constantly diminishing).

6. Such a state of affairs within bourgeois society—

Overproduction, causing more or less acute industrial crises, followed by more or less prolonged periods of industrial stagnation, is an inevitable consequence of the growth of productive forces in the absence of planfulness, characteristic of commodity production and of the capitalist production relations inherent in present-day society. Crises and periods of industrial stagnation, in turn, make the position of petty
producers already difficult (as described in the preceding point) even more difficult, and lead all the more rapidly to a relative—and in certain localities to an absolute—worsening of the position of proletarians.

7. Thus, technical improvement, signifying an increase in the productivity of labor and growth of social wealth, necessarily conditions itself in bourgeois society by an increase in social inequality, an increase in the distance between the haves and have-nots, growth of insecurity of existence, unemployment, and all manner of privation*).

8. But as all these contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production grow and develop, so too grows the discontent of the laboring and exploited mass with the existing order of things, and the struggle of its vanguard representative—the proletariat—against the defenders of this order becomes more acute***).

At the same time, technical improvement, socializing the process of labor within the workshop and concentrating production*), creates ever more rapidly the possibility of that social revolution which constitutes**) the final goal of all the activity of international social-democracy, as the conscious expression of the class movement of the proletariat.

9. This social revolution will consist in the elimination of capitalist production relations and their replacement with socialist ones—that is, in the expropriation of the exploiters for the transfer of the means of production and circulation of products into public ownership, and in the planned organization of the social productive process for the satisfaction of the needs of society as a whole as well as of its individual members. The accomplishment of this goal*) will liberate all oppressed humanity, as it will put an end to all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another.

10. In order to accomplish its social revolution, the proletariat must conquer political power (class dictatorship), which will make it master of the situation and allow it to overcome all obstacles. Organizing itself for this goal into an independent political party standing in opposition to all bourgeois parties, the proletariat calls into its ranks all the other strata of the population suffering from capitalist exploitation, calculating on their support insofar as they become conscious of the hopelessness of their position in contemporary society and take the standpoint of the proletariat.

11. The party of the struggling proletariat, social-democracy, directs all manifestations of its class struggle, exposes to the entire laboring and exploited mass*) the irreconcilable contradiction between the interests of the exploiters and the interests of the exploited, and clarifies to it**) the historical significance and necessary conditions of the forthcoming social revolution.

12. But, despite the unity of their common ultimate goal, conditioned by the dominance of an identical mode of production throughout the civilized world, social-democrats of different countries set before themselves different immediate tasks both because this mode of production is not everywhere developed to an equal degree, and because its development in different countries takes place in different socio-political circumstances.

13. In Russia, alongside capitalism, rapidly expanding the sphere of its dominion and becoming an ever more and more predominant mode of production, at every step we encounter still the remnants of our old, pre-capitalist social order, which was based on the enserfment of the laboring masses to landowners, to the state, or to the head of state. These remnants hold back to the strongest degree the development of productive forces, do not permit the all-round development of the class struggle of the proletariat, degrade the living standard of the laboring population, condition the Asiatic-barbarous forms of the ruin and decline of the many-million peasantry, and keep the entire people in darkness, lack of rights, and oppression.

14. Being the most significant of all the remnants of our serf system and the mightiest bulwark of all this barbarism, tsarist autocracy is completely incompatible with the political and civil freedom, long existing in the advanced countries of capitalist production, as its natural juridical complement. By its very nature it must oppress all social movement and cannot fail to be the bitterest enemy of all the liberation strivings of the proletariat.

Therefore, Russian social-democracy sets before itself as its immediate political task the overthrow of tsarist autocracy and its replacement with a republic on the basis of a democratic constitution, ensuring, etc.

In general, the more one reads into the commission's draft, the more one becomes convinced of its, so to speak, undigested quality. I venture to predict that this quality of the draft will bring down upon us much reproach—and justified reproach—if we publish it in such a form. Everyone will see that this is an external "pasting together."

If the lord god has punished us for our sins with the necessity to put forth a "bastard" draft, then at least we must apply all efforts to minimize the unfortunate consequences thereof. Completely wrong therefore are those who are most guided by the desire to "finish quickly": one can wager that now, with such a constellation, nothing but harm will come from haste, and our editorial draft will be unsatisfactory. It is not important to print it immediately in No. 4 of *Zarya*: we will print it in No. 5 and release it as a separate offprint before the appearance of No. 5. With such a procedure a delay of some month or so will not be the slightest party loss. And in truth it would have been better if the high commission had worked hard some more, thought things through, digested them, and given us their project not pasted together but whole. I repeat once more: if this task is not feasible, then it would be far more useful for the cause to return to the plan of two projects (and we will be quite able to implement this plan without any "awkwardness." Plekhanov publishes under his own signature in *Zarya*, and I—"on the side," in Geneva, as x, y, z). I most respectfully petition the highest body for careful consideration of "all the circumstances of the matter"...

12 IV 02, in the train: I apologize for the scrawl. If I have time, I will write more clearly.

---

Besides the remarks made on 12.IV on Martov's manuscript (document No. 20), Vladimir Ilyich wrote—evidently after arriving in London—some additional remarks.

21.

LENIN. SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE 
COMMISSION'S DRAFT PROGRAM.

In addition to the remarks on the draft itself, I will note further:

§ 3. "Society (bourgeois) is characterized by the dominance of commodity production under capitalist production relations, i.e."... and further describes the basic features of capitalism. The result is an incongruity: by means of "i.e." are joined heterogeneous, unequal concepts, namely 1) a modification of commodity production in that form which is conditioned by the dominance of capitalist production relations, and 2) the sale of products on the market and the sale by masses of the population of their labor-power.

This incongruity, this equation of the BASIC and most general features of commodity production in general and capitalism in general—and modification of commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations (whereas commodities are then exchanged no longer simply according to value)—strikingly demonstrates the unsuccessfulness of the formulation by G. V. [Plekhanov] (and the commission accepted and only rephased this formulation). In a program which sets forth only the most general and basic features of capitalism, not even setting forth the theory of surplus-value—we suddenly give a "nod" to Böhm-Bawerk, reminding [the reader] that "commodity production on the basis of capitalism" is not quite the same as simple commodity production! If so, then why not add to the program special nods to Mikhailovsky, Berdyaev, etc.? On the one hand, even to Marx's entire doctrine of the exploitation of labor by capital is devoted only one most general socialist expression: "create by their labor their incomes" (§ 3 at the end)—and on the other hand is noted the special transformation of surplus-value into profit under "commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations."

G. V. [Plekhanov] is completely right that the words "commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations" express the main idea of Volume III. But what place does this idea have in a program—as irrelevant as it is to describe the mechanism of realization, constituting the main idea of Volume II, as it is to describe the transformation of excess profit into ground-rent. In a program it is sufficient to note the exploitation of labor by capital = formation of surplus-value, and to speak of all sorts of transformations and modifications of the forms of this surplus-value is out of place (and impossible in a few brief propositions). Addition to the question of class struggle.

I fully share the view of V. Dm. [Zasulich] that we can attract a much larger proportion of small producers into the ranks of social-democracy and much sooner (than in the West)—that in order to accomplish this we must do everything in our power—that this "wish" should be expressed in the program "against" the Martynovs and Company.

I fully agree with all this. I welcome the addition of what is expressed at the end of § 10—I emphasize this in order to avoid misunderstanding.

But we must not go too far in the other direction, as V. Dm. [Zasulich] does! We must not confuse a "wish" with reality, and moreover with that immanently necessary reality to which alone our Prinzipienerklärung is devoted! It is desirable to attract all small producers—of course. But we know that this is a special class, though connected to the proletariat by a thousand threads and transitional stages, yet still a special class.

It is obligatory first to separate ourselves from all, to isolate one class only, uniquely and exclusively—the proletariat—and then already to declare that the proletariat will liberate all, will save all, calls all.

I agree to this "then," but I demand first this "first"!

In our Russia the devilish torments of the "laboring and exploited mass" aroused no popular movement whatsoever, so long as a "handful" of factory workers did not begin the struggle—class struggle. And only this "handful" guarantees its conduct, continuation, expansion. Precisely in Russia, where even critics (Bulgakov) accuse social-democrats of "peasant-phobia," and socialist-revolutionaries cry out about the necessity of replacing the concept of class struggle with the concept of "struggle of all the laboring and exploited" (*Vestnik Russkoy Revolyutsii*, 2)2)—precisely in Russia we must first with the sharpest definition of one class struggle of one ONLY proletariat separate ourselves from all this rabble—and then already declare that we call ALL, will take ALL, will do ALL, will expand to ALL.

But the commission "expands," forgetting to separate itself! And they accuse me of narrowness for demanding that this "separation" precede expansion?! This is a falsification, gentlemen!!

The struggle with the united critics—plus the gentlemen philistines from the *Russian Gazette* and *Russian Wealth*—plus the socialist-revolutionaries—which is inevitably before us tomorrow will necessarily require from us precisely a demarcation of the class struggle of the proletariat from the "struggle" (is it struggle?) of the "laboring and exploited mass." Phrases about this mass—the chief trump card in the hands of all the uncertain Cantonists, and the commission plays into their hands and takes from us the weapon for struggle against half-measures in order to emphasize one half! Do not forget the other half!

1) Declaration of Principles, the theoretical part of the program.

2) *Vestnik Russkoy Revolyutsii* [Herald of the Russian Revolution], a theoretical journal of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, No. 1 came out in Geneva in April 1901, edited by Tarasov (Rusanov). In Nos. 23 of *Iskra* (1/14 August) and No. 24 (1/14 September 1902) Lenin published an article "Revolutionary Adventurism," where he branded the entire confusion of the "principally-theoretical declarations" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries in this journal. No. 2 of the journal came out in February 1902. Four issues came out in all (Nos. 3—March 1903, No. 4—March 1905).